Re: (erielack) M&E/Rahway Valley News

["Bill K." <pontiac_@_dreamscape.com>]

Actually the original Dewitt intermodal terminal was outside the yard, on
the end of an industrial lead that fed into a remnant of the original
passenger mainline through the streets of Syracuse.   For a long time jobs
would have a main track tied up with a fleet signal so they could work the
terminal.  The loader was small, like a large rubber-tire payloader but with
a lift that could grab the container tops instead.  The space was once an
engine terminal, part of the coal dock remains and some other structures
were built so loading room was fairly tight.

They did eventually move it to a larger space in the yard's hump lead and
inbound receiving tracks, with a large overhead crane... but they also were
doing a lot of local work and had trains that originated and terminated
here.

To duplicate that operation I would think would be cheap if you had the
land, an empty yard like Bevier Street on the D&H would work - just dedicate
a track, pave around it, and get a loader in there.   The old Dewitt
facility wasn't and isn't even fenced in.  You could probably even work it
into a space along the DL&W main somewhere, if it was wide enough for say 6
tracks somewhere for a hundred yards or so.   Handle some local traffic with
it and probably could get funds to help pay for it to boot.  A train headed
through the filet could pick up enough empty cars somewhere to split it out,
and pull through getting the tops picked off, then loaded in the empties.
Put a fresh crew on and send it on it's way -


Bill K.



- ----- Original Message -----
From: <Jedalberg_@_aol.com>
To: <gkazin_@_yahoo.com>; <Fish_76@webtv.net>; <erielack@railfan.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: (erielack) M&E/Rahway Valley News


> Another aspect of "de-stacking" the double stacked containers is that you
> have effectively doubled the length of train. Notwithstanding the capital
> expense of building a "fillet" terminal reasonably close to the east coast
so
> that you continue to get the benefit of double stacking, plus the cost of
the
> lift equipment and additional railcars.And don't forget time. DS doesn't
get
> you two for one cost-wise, but it is a lot better than the one for one of
> single stack or conventional 89' equipment. Conrail did the fillet for
(APL)
> Boston bound traffic at a special terminal in Syracuse.
> Remember also that double stack cars are considerably wider at the bottom,
as
> well, and if talking about domestic boxes, 20'6" ATR for clearance. Most
> international boxes are still 8'6"(primarily because of clearances
overseas),
> so if you can afford the inconvenience of hi-lo loading, you can get away
> with less clearance height.(As a point of interest the Bergen tunnel at
the
> east end is only good for hi-lo loading, as is the Waldo tunnel under
PATH.
> We hit the tunnel with a container there and turned it into a sort of
> parallelogram.The Weehawken line had a restriction at the DL&W overpass,
> which is why the Northern line was cleared We hit it with a containerabout
> 17-18 years ago. Container was loaded with cloth bales and splayed out to
the
> sides. Pulled the train back into Croxton, where the BUOI eased by
whacking
> the sides of the container. Bet that was some expensive cloth!
> Jim
>

------------------------------